Um, 3D games don't need any extra storage space. The second point of view is being rendered in real-time using the same scene geometry, using the same textures etc.
3D movies (and pre-rendered cutscenes) need twice as much space because two video streams must be encoded. But the games, nope. No extra space needed.
The person who said:
<<This is the only website I've seen say the 3D lowers the detail. Other sites said there was no downgrade.>>
And the 5 people who agreed with him.
Haha, more ignorance. You typing this on your PS3 btw?
This has to do with how Sony markets their 3D mode as a huge innovation that hasn't been done before and how Sony gamers respond to it.
Even in articles you read stuff like "The first real 3D game blablabla" when Nvidia has brought 3D to mainstream gamers a long time ago.
Disagree all you want, it just shows your lack of knowledge. Everything I said is factual.
Who cares how you look while playing a game as long as it's fun? People also dislike 3D because you have to wear "dorky" glasses. Seriously, who the hell cares?
And by the way, waving a pink dildo-shaped light bulb around like a light saber isn't gonna make you look like much of a stud either. Ask Star Wars Kid.
It may have lower minimum requirements than the first game. But seeing this trailer I'd say you'll need something really bad ass for Ultra quality.
A screen recording would have awful image quality (and double images due to the 3D). This is definitely a direct feed of either the left or the right view.
It doesn't matter how long it's away. 3-D needs roughly twice the processing power to match frame rate and image quality of 2-D, that's just how it works.
Well, the author of that article saw "layers" in Avatar which is utterly ridiculous. A movie that's shot using a dual camera setup doesn't have layers.
A 2D-3D conversion like Alice in Wonderland or Clash of the Titans does.
There may well be an HD version on Youtube. But this crappy embedded video won't link you to the Youtube site of the video where you could pick 720p.
With no playable demo out, we can't exactly comment on how well it plays because we don't know.
Pretty bad Photoshops actually.
And all the images obviously have the same aliasing and mid-res textures. If that's what it'll look like on PC I might as well get the 360 version now. Well, if I had a 360 that is :D
Rockstar using DX11? You'll need a 12-core to pull more than 30fps no doubt.
Most TVs are 60 Hz. So unless you want 30 Hz per eye (flicker flicker flicker), this isn't going to be useful for a lot of people.
People could pick only a single game: the one they want ported the most.
That's why Heavy Rain or Alan Wake have such low percentages. Can't vote for all of them, so most people chose RDR.
Um, yeah. I don't care one bit about mods. But I still want RDR on PC.
Actually, Panasonic is the way to go right now because of cross-talk issues with the Samsungs. I don't know about the Sonys.
They code PS3 games on PS3s? Wow, didn't know that.
You're better with an analog stick than with a mouse? Try drawing a smooth Eight (8) with your crosshair.